posted
Ok, so I'm completely unsure of this, and wanted to ask.
Do chapters need to be in chronological order, even when showing other character viewpoints?
For example:
Chapter One, in Kerry's perspective, is about Kerry receiving a note from her sister. Chapter Two, in her sisters perspective, is about how Kerry's sister manages to get her that note.
These two chapters occur, chronologically, at the same time. Is this acceptable? I know I've seen it done before, but I wanted to make sure.
posted
No, but if they are out of time order, you better make certain the reader doesn't get confused or -- worse -- yet angry.
Posts: 1580 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think you have to stick like glue to one POV character in all stories. But I do think you want to be careful about it.
I also think it's alright to back up a little when you switch POV. But, again, you have to be careful about it. It can be disorienting for the reader.
I wrote more in my answer to your e-mail along with the critique. I won't repeat all of that here. Basically, as a reader, I don't like the POV to get too scattered. I still need to know who it is that I'm following. And I HATE it when an author leaves a character in the middle of something mysterious or dangerous and goes off to follow another character for several chapters. I tend not to read anything more by those authors.
posted
That can be done, but it is likely to instill a bit of confusion in the reader, so it's best to be sure there is a compelling reason to show both POVs.
Even though the same block of time is covered, it might be easier for a reader to "follow" the note, suggesting a reversal of chapters.
[This message has been edited by dee_boncci (edited January 14, 2009).]
posted
My first project included an event told from two perspectives. No one ever complained about this though a few raised an eyebrow. As long as there is a good reason for doing this, and you make it painfully clear eary on that the second sequence takes place the same time as the first, I don't think there's a problem.
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
As long as the chronology is clear, I think it's fine. You could, for instance, have them both experience the same event, then have both scenes start with that.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't care for the movie Pulp Fiction, and much of that was because the chronology of the scenes was not at all clear on first viewing. I'm sure there was some grand artistic reason it was done this way, but if so, it was over my head.
To me, it seemed more lazy than artistic to make no effort at clarity.
posted
I think that we can become too focused on clarity in modern science fiction. A stained glass window obscures vision but still provides light and beauty. A writer can write a plot line in any order if the end product satisfies.
I was about to cite Pulp Fiction as a positive instance of out of sequence plotting (then I read the last post). It is true that for some the technique was too jarring to follow but I think that those would fall overwhelmingly in the minority. Lazy? No. I think that it was a very good idea not to over explain the thematic purpose of the technique. I guess if you are writing juvenile novels you might not want to use 'grand artistic reasons' and confuse inexperienced readers, but if you want to write adult fiction you are free to experiment with time. Again, these kinds of toying with time POV etc. are allowable only if you satisfy the reader's expectations. Pulp Fiction satisfied millions of viewers.
posted
Pulp Fiction certainly did satisfy millions of viewers, but not me. I prefer to have a storyteller who will tell me a story, not try to wow me with his artsiness. Perhaps I should stick to juvenile novels.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will concede that "lazy" was the wrong word. I'm sure a great deal of thought was put into how to format the movie. I liked a lot of the scenes, but I became very annoyed when a character shows up that had been killed in a previous scene. I had seen no indication that the scene's were reverse order until this moment.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steffenwolf- my comments were not meant to be a personal attack, nor as a negative view of juvenile novels. I am sorry if you took them that way.
Gan- as you can see it is important not to make the differing timelines too confusing. I for one think that the scenario you paint could easily be pulled off.
posted
The scenes in the movie Pulp Fiction were edited out of chronological order to reflect the style in many pulp magazines of the 40's and 50's.
There is a different psychological effect when John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson walk out of the restaurant at the end of the movie than there would be if the movie ended with John Travolta getting shot while on the toilet.
I have watched the movie in chronological order, and I definitely think it is better the way it has been edited. If you didn't like it how it is, I doubt you would like it the other way either.
posted
Cheyne, sorry if my response seemed too harsh. I didn't see your comments as a personal attack, and I wasn't trying to retaliate. I was just musing that maybe I really should stick to juvenile novels.
philocinemas-Perhaps the intended effect was lost on me because I've never read the pulp magazines of the 40s and 50s. It could also have been because I was in junior high when I saw it, so I may not have appreciated aspects that I could appreciate now.
In any case, I just won't watch the movie again and we'll all be happy.
posted
As an example of a movie that had a timeline that was definitely not in a traditional ordering that I DID like: Memento.
I liked the ordering because the chronology was very clear early on, and the ordering enhanced the story. Because you don't know what happened before any particular scene, you're disoriented just like the character is.
posted
To be clear I'm not so much criticizing Pulp Fiction because of its untraditional out-of-order nature, I can't really evaluate that, because what I am criticizing it for is having an inherently stupid and boring story that wasted the talents of great actors, in my view.
And I was about to mention Memento which was an excellent film, on the whole.
But as far as I can tell, our differences in taste here are more along the lines of debating pears vs peaches and not necessarily a difference in quality.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited January 15, 2009).]
posted
I also enjoyed Memento. I have found it interesting how many very popular and some revolutionary movies over the last 15 years have followed along the coat tails of Star Trek: The Next Generation. There was an episode (I do not remember the name) that was very similar to Memento. There was also an episode similar to Groundhog Day, but without the comedic effect. If I were home, I could name several others and tell you the episode names as well. I could do it now, but there I have my handy-dandy books to help me remember.
Regarding Pulp Fiction, I realize it does not suit everyone's taste. My wife and mother would both hate it, so I would not even try to get them to watch it. It was unusual, and that alone attracts the attention of critics. It featured great actors who had not received much attention or recognition up until that point. Many kids at that time probably didn't know who John Travolta was. Samuel L. Jackson's career also took off after that movie. The most well-known actor, Bruce Willis, had the smallest part.
The movie also did something else. It created an emotional juxtaposition with scenes that had very unique responses. When I was in the theatre and Travolta accidentally shot the guy in the back seat, almost everyone laughed. I felt guilty afterwards, but tried to reflect on why it was funny. It was unexpected, the audience had not formed any emotional bond with the character, and the other two character acted just as surprised as we were.
The movie was crammed full of situations that elicited responses that were unexpected and difficult to explain. I'm not trying to convince anyone that they will like this movie if they didn't like it the first time they saw it. However, I do think it relates well to the topic in that how the story was organized played to the response of the audience (positive or negative).
posted
BTW, yes, I know Travolta had been well-known previously with Grease and Saturday Night Fever and that Jackson and Keitel had been in several high profile movies, but except for Keitel, almost everyone else's career got a big shot in the arm with this movie.
Posts: 2003 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
